City Is Attempting To Stall, And Potentially Stonewall, Public Records Act Release Of Full Results Of Survey (Portions Selectively Released By Mayor Last Month) Purporting To Show Support For Raising Sales Tax To 10% <P><small>Council Will Cast Final Vote Tonight On Whether To Revise Ballot Measure's Misleading Title and Text And Include Legal Guarantees Of Spending On Specific Items, Not Gen'l Tax "Blank Check"</small>

LBReport.com

Statement by the Publisher

City Is Attempting To Stall And Potentially Stonewall Public Records Act Release Of Full Results Of Survey (Portions Selectively Released By Mayor Last Month) Purporting To Show Support For Raising Sales Tax To 10%

Council Will Cast Final Vote Tonight On Whether To Revise Ballot Measure's Misleading Title and Text And Include Legal Guarantees Of Spending On Specific Items, Not Gen'l Tax "Blank Check"

LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.

(UPDATE March 5, 2016) -- On March 5, LBREPORT.com reported developments in this story: Survey Mayor Garcia Cited In Urging Sales Tax Hike Was Part Of Broader Survey That Sought Public's Opinion Of LB Police Officers, Of Him And Of Council, Included Results By Race / Gender / Age, And Wasn't Commissioned, Paid Or Directed Using City Funds, Resources Or Staff

(Mar. 1, 2016, 9:45 a.m.) -- A City of Long Beach city management staff office, whose actions reflect actions and decisions by other city offices, is attempting to stall and potentially to stonewall release of the full results of a survey of the public [possibly conducted at public taxpayer expense], portions of which were selectively released to accompany a Feb. 11 letter from Mayor Robert Garcia, purporting to show widespread public support a sales tax increase for public safety and infrastructure items.

[Scroll down for further below.]

On Feb. 19, LBREPORT.com requested under the CA Public Records Act (CA Gov't Code section 6250 et seq.) "a copy the full report of the results of a survey -- including all questions asked, responses received, 'question tree' procedure on receiving certain responses, methodology and related analysis by the survey firm -- publicly released in partial form as a "to interested parties" attachment by Mayor Robert Garcia in connection with his publicly released letter dated Feb. 11, 2016, advocating placement of a sales tax increase measure on the June 2016 ballot. The survey firm's full report is believed to be in the office of Mayor Garcia or the City Manager. No raw data are requested, simply the survey firm's full report...Thank you."

On Feb. 22, the City office handling Public Records Act requests acknowledged receipt of the request and indicated it would get back to us.

On Feb. 29 at 8:40 p.m., LBREPORT.com received an email from the city management staff office stating: "We received your request. Additional time is needed. Occasionally, when a request involves unusual circumstances or requires a search within several City facilities, our normal response time is delayed. Consequently, pursuant to the Government Code, we are extending the time within which to identify responsive records. We anticipate a response to your request on or before March 14, 2016. Thank you."

The CA Public Records Act provides in pertinent part:

CA Gov't Code section 6253:
...(b) Except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law, each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable. Upon request, an exact copy shall be provided unless impracticable to do so. (c) Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor. In unusual circumstances, the time limit prescribed in this section may be extended by written notice by the head of the agency or his or her designee to the person making the request, setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. No notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days. When the agency dispatches the determination, and if the agency determines that the request seeks disclosable public records, the agency shall state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available. As used in this section, "unusual circumstances" means the following, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular request:
(1) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request.
(2) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request.
(3) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein.
(4) The need to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data.
(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records required by Section 6255 shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial.

Applying the Public Records Act's statutory requirements to the City's actions to date, the City has failed to provide the document requested, failed to cite any specific provisions of law exempting it from disclosure, failed provide prompt notification of its specific reasons therefor and failed to meet the requirements for invoking a 14 day delay/extension for "unusual circumstances" since only a single document is requested, doesn't involve a search and collection from field facilities, doesn't seek voluminous documents and there's no need to consult with any other agency of which we're aware.

The CA Public Records Act further provides in pertinent part:

CA Gov't Code section 6253 (e):
Except as otherwise prohibited by law, a state or local agency may adopt requirements for itself that allow for faster, more efficient, or greater access to records than prescribed by the minimum standards set forth in this chapter.

Accordingly, LBREPORT.com believes the City's actions have failed to comply with the Public Records Act.

LBREPORT.com believes the City Council has the ability to direct release of the full results of the survey, which is obviously in the City's possession and control and may have been undertaken at public expense.

Background

As proposed by Mayor Garcia and advanced in Council votes on Feb. 16 (instructions to draft the measure) and Feb. 23 (first of two votes to put measure on ballot), the proposed tax increase would allow current and future Councils to spend the tax increase on any general fund items (despite non-binding statements of the Council's current "intent" for desirable sounding items) and raise LB's sales tax to 10% while Signal Hill/Lakewood charge 9% and most OC cities charge 8%.

A second Council vote is required tonight (March 1) to put the measure on the ballot. In tonight's meeting, any Councilmember could move, and a Council majority could vote to change, aspects of the proposed tax measure. These could include revising its misleading drafted ballot title and text that as currently proposed would show voters on their ballots funding items that the tax text itself doesn't include or legally guarantee. The Council could vote tonight to include a legally binding guarantee that the tax would be used for specific items (that the Council has claimed in non-binding statements it "intends") or alternatively could hold the proposed measure over to the November ballot, in both cases with Prop 13/Prop 218 constitutional approvals by 2/3 votes of the people.

A non-scientific survey of LBREPORT.com readers with results at this link showed overwhelmingly negative responses when readers learned details of the Council's actions to date.

Developing. Further to follow.

Opinions expressed by LBREPORT.com, our contributors and/or our readers are not necessary those of our advertisers. We welcome our readers' comments/opinions 24/7 via Disqus, Facebook and moderate length letters and longer-form op-ed pieces submitted to us at mail@LBReport.com.